|
Top-level
@j12t Dave Winer has this to say about "our social web" 'I started using the term "social web" on my blog a few months ago. I liked it because it was broad, and it inherited all the qualities of the web, most important that no one owned it, so that it could be a space for independent developers that worked for the benefit of users. ' 4 comments
@j12t I think he thinks of the ‘social web’ with its inherent opennness but with interop built on RSS technology as an alternative to ‘social media platforms’ like X or Facebook which are controlled by tech billionaires?  @ChaplinTokyo Some people say that Myspace (closed, proprietary, non-interoperable) was part of the social web. Or that any website that has some kind of functionality that lets people interact, even if it's only on their own site, is part of the social web. Another is that people on different websites can still interact, which requires interop of some kind, e.g. RSS, ActivityPub etc. @j12t I suppose the difference in perception comes from whether they are services built on ‘web technologies’ aiming to lock in the users or they are independent sites forming a part of ‘the worldwide web’ of interconnects of links, ideas and opinions free of lock in. At least I think that people like Dave Winer who comes from the early years of the internet thinks of those early ideals to be ‘the web’… |
Gregory's Server
@ChaplinTokyo I saw that, yes! He doesn't specifically enumerate though what is different between "our web" and "our social web". What makes it social?